JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. Rule. Mr. Mehta learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for respondent No. 1, and Ms. Bhavika Kotecha learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No. 2. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. 3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the Claim Petition No. 745 of 1995 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Himmatnagar. Ultimately, the award was passed by the tribunal dated 31.7.2006, whereby the amount of compensation was awarded of Rs. 8,93,600/- with interest. It has been stated by Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that no appeal is preferred. It appears that thereafter, the Insurance Company deposited the amount, and the petitioners had applied for permitting withdrawal. However, the tribunal passed an order for investment as per the award, and did not permit withdrawal, so far as the share of petitioner No. 1, who was widow and the petitioner No. 2, who was the daughter of the deceased, and full amount of their shares is ordered to be invested in the FDR, for a period of five years, and the petitioners are only permitted to withdraw periodical interest from time to time. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court by the present petition. 4. Heard Mr. Joshi learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, who is the main contesting party and Ms. Kotecha learned AGP for the State Government. 5. As such, it is an admitted position that the petitioner No. 1, who is, widow is aged 55 years, and therefore, she was major at the time, when the claim petition was decided by the tribunal. So far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, when the claim petition was filed in the year 1995, she was minor, but on the date, when the award was passed, she had become major. Therefore, in normal circumstances, if the claimant is major, certain amount is permitted to be disbursed to the claimant, and the majority of the amount are ordered to be invested in the FDR. The tribunal did the same thing in respect of other co-claimant, namely two sons of the deceased, who were applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in the claim petition. The tribunal did the same thing in respect of other co-claimant, namely two sons of the deceased, who were applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in the claim petition. However, so far as the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, no disbursement is made and the full amount is ordered to be invested. The petitioner has stated in the petition that the marriage of younger son of the petitioner has taken place, and she has borrowed money from the relatives, The petitioner No. 2-original claimant No. 4 has become major, and she requires money for repairing of the house. Even otherwise also no disbursement whatsoever has been made by the tribunal in spite of the facts that on the date of award, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were major. Hence, it would be just and proper to permit withdrawal of 10 percent of the amount to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 each, and 90 percent of amount be invested in the FDR on the same terms and conditions as ordered by the tribunal. No other adverse circumstances are brought to the notice of this Court, even by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. Under these circumstances, the tribunal is directed to permit withdrawal of 10 percent of the proportionate amount to the petitioner No.1 as well as 10 percent of the proportionate amount to petitioner No.2 from their respective shares, which have been invested in the FDR, and the payment shall be made by A/c. cheque. The remaining amount of 90 percent shall be invested in the FDR, on the same terms and conditions as per award, which would permit petitioners to withdraw interest periodically from time to time. It would also be open to the tribunal to encash FDR premature with a view to give effect to the present order. 7. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.